Updated Title: World Revolution 2011

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Sarah the Impaler from Alaska accused Obama of just that just hours before the bombs started falling.

I'm sure Obama was following her presser to see if she gave him the green light to start bombing.This has to be the first time in the history of the world that a President sends 30,000 troops into battle, doubles down on Drone strikes in Pakistan, and engages in warfare in Libya yet is being accused of being weak on national security. Huh?

What's scary --really scary-- is that this woman is running for president and her followers believe everything she says.

[12thMan]

I think Yemen is different because, well, they are cooperating with us on al-Queda. So they are helping to serve our national security interest, as odd as that seems.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Meanwhile in Yemen...

It seems unlikely that places like Egypt and Tunisia will go the way of al Qaeda. Yemen, however, is a different story. It could easily come to resemble a failed state like Somalia and serve as a paradise for al Qaeda activity.

If this analysis is correct, should we get involved or not? Our involvement could backfire. Our noninvolvement could backfire.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I'm sure Obama was following her presser to see if she gave him the green light to start bombing.This has to be the first time in the history of the world that a President sends 30,000 troops into battle, doubles down on Drone strikes in Pakistan, and engages in warfare in Libya yet is being accused of being weak on national security. Huh?

What's scary --really scary-- is that this woman is running for president and her followers believe everything she says.

Yeah, overseeing three military theaters is "weak."

Perhaps my faith is blind but I feel that Governor Quitter will self-destruct, leaving her with only her most loyal zombies.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I know Iraq keeps getting thrown around, but let's not forget Bush received authorization for use of force from Congress....with bi-partisan support before the first bomb dropped.

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Between Congress and the UN giving support, I'd rather have Congressional support.

Pres. Obama did not request congressional authorization for this action in Libya (although he's not required to get one). He had UN Security Council authorization, but keep in mind 5 countries abstained from voting, two who could have nixed the authorization (China, Russia). Putin BTW has come out blasting the US since the no-fly zone was imposed.

I would've much rather seen countries from the Arab League and Europe handle this from day one. We could've provided some logistics or intel support, but they should've taken the lead.

Arab League? The ones being overthrown? You can't be serious!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by BuckSkin

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
With that said the United States has only declared war 5 times in it's entire history. Clinton set the precedent with Operation Desert Fox and his two successors have followed suit.

What about the Korean "War?"

[BuckSkin]

After the Japanese surrender in WWII, the Allies divided the Korean peninsula at the 38 parallel(much the same as the majority of Europe). United States was assigned protectorate of modern day South Korea and the Soviets in the north. When the North Koreans invaded the US was forced onto the conflict by treaty. The same would happen today if say..... a member of NATO was invaded.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by BuckSkin

After the Japanese surrender in WWII, the Allies divided the Korean peninsula at the 38 parallel(much the same as the majority of Europe). United States was assigned protectorate of modern day South Korea and the Soviets in the north. When the North Koreans invaded the US was forced onto the conflict by treaty. The same would happen today if say..... a member of NATO was invaded.

In other words we didn't declare war and the United Nations gave us permission to go to war.

[BuckSkin]

Originally Posted by saden1

In other words we didn't declare war and the United Nations gave us permission to go to war.

The Treaty (which has to be registered with the UN) with South Korea mandated that the US come to their aid when the North invaded. Failure to comply with a treaty is like breach of contract, in that a nation can be "liable" under International Law.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lotus

False. A declaration of war, politically and legally, is different from a peace keeping mission. A declaration of war is a formal gesture which has not happened in terms of Libya.

So Japan did not declare war in us when they dropped bombs on pearl Harbour?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I'm sure Obama was following her presser to see if she gave him the green light to start bombing.This has to be the first time in the history of the world that a President sends 30,000 troops into battle, doubles down on Drone strikes in Pakistan, and engages in warfare in Libya yet is being accused of being weak on national security. Huh?

What's scary --really scary-- is that this woman is running for president and her followers believe everything she says.

Now that you mention all that it seems like he is more into the war for oil then Bush.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I definitely agree with your argument about the Arab League and Europe. Hopefully it will work out that way in the long term: we make a lot of noise on the first day (can't change that part now) but then drift into the shadows in the weeks ahead.

I hope so to.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Essentially this is what's taking place. France dropped the first bomb and while we are launching Tomahawks, we're also providing logistical supand intel support. I think Obama is very eager to hand this Op over to NATO and the Europeans and recede into the background.

This was drawn up by the French and Brits, they're capable enough and should have been point on this IMO. My concern is that as the Arab League tempers its response in the wake of "claimed" Libyian civilian deaths, and eventually cools in its support along with the Europeans, who gets left holding the bag....US.

The bottom line is this, had President Obama waited longer many on the right would have accused him of being "weak" and "dithering". Their favorite word lately. Congress would still be, at this very moment, deciding whether or not to launch, how much the cost, calling in Generals to testify. All sorts of BS drawing this out even longer. Had he gone in sooner it would have been a unilateral campaign drawing the ire of everyone, except for John McCain and Joe Lieberman. So I think he got it right based on the little Constitutional wiggle room he has as Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama shouldn't give a $hit what the right accuses him of. He should have a clearly defined strategy here for entry (if he and his advisers deem appropriate), execution, and exit. If we've learned anything over the past decade, it should have been the last part is more important that the other two.

If he's confident enough to commit US forces, he better be confident enough to argue his position to Congress and the American people (I'm not saying he needs to wait for Congressional approval, but he needs to have a damn strong case). Believe me, I would love to see Gaddafi deposed or dead, but it isn't the best thing for his blood to be on our hands....publicly. If we were going to take him out, I'd rather it be the "rebels" with some US Special Forces "advisors" getting the assist behind the scenes. Now that this has really blown up, it is best for our national interest to get to the background quickly.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Arab League? The ones being overthrown? You can't be serious!

The Saudis, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Egypt (military is running the show there anyway) all have capable militaries. Not counting Egypt, I think the estimated 2011 spend of the 7 countries was $70B. They have the capability to impose a No Fly Zone in Libya without European or US assistance if they wanted to. If they were so concerned about a civilian massacre, they should've stepped in and simply requested US support.

[GMScud]

YouTube - Could Obama be Impeached over Libya?...